Thursday, July 02, 2009

Readers Note: On the thread of Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Liethere are six comments – three each from cks and skeptical – concerning the actions and inactions of DPD Duke lacrosse investigators in the first days and weeks of the hoax and frame attempt.

I’ve combined cks and sceptical’s three comments each on the thread into two comments each here on the main page.

Combining their comments that way sets up a Q&A which is very informative as to what DPD was and was not doing in Mar. and Apr. 2006 regarding the non-lacrosse students who were at the party.

The exchange between cks and skeptical will also no doubt lead many of you to ask probing questions which ought to have been asked in 2006 by media and answered then by DPD.

Keeping in mind the wise admonition: “Don’t get in the way of a good thing,” I’ll say nothing more in this post except "thank you" to cks and sceptical.

John

_____________________________________________

cks asks - - -

If, as the news reports indicated, there were both students and non-students in attendance at the party, why were only lacrosse members' (who of course had to be students at Duke)pictures shown to Crystal Mangum? I think that this also goes to the heart of the frame. . . .

sceptical responds - - -

There were at least 2 students at the party who were not members of the lacrosse team-- Brent Saeli and Blake Boehimler (see Himan's case notes).

That prompts cks to ask - - -

This raises the question as to why those two students pictures were not a part of the photo array shown to Crystal?

Who made the decision not to include them?

Would their inclusion (in the photo line-up)have made the frame more difficult to maintain?

sceptical answers - - -

cks asks why pictures of [the two students] who were not lacrosse players were not shown to Mangum.

The answer is that the police were not really sure of who was at the party, even among the lacrosse players. Duke Police gave them pictures of the lacrosse team which is what were used in the March 14 and 21 ID sessions with Mangum.

The April 4 session used the pictures taken pursuant to the NTO on March 23.

** 3/28/06 1720hrs - Went to the apartment of William Blake Boehmler ---/---/---- /7/84, he agreed to come to the station to talk about what happened on 3/13/06. Mr. Boehmler signed a non-custodial form and was advised that the meeting was voluntarily and he was free to go at any time and that he was not in custody. He stated that he was invited by some of the lacrosse players to the party, he stated that he came over. The girls started to dance he stated that none of them looked impaired and that he stated that there was an argument and someone mentioned something about a pimp. Mr. Bohemler stated he got scared and decided to leave (due to him being on probation) and that he left with Brent Saili back to 1107 Urban Ave. He gave name of friend that he was with at the time of the party and who he was during the night Brent Saeli... **

So pictures of Brent and Blake could have and should have been used in the April 4 session-- they were not. . . .

Mike Nifong found out about the case that now threatens his career March 23, 2006, when he stopped by the office copier and found a court order demanding DNA samples from 46 Duke lacrosse players. An escort service dancer told police that three men at a team party had dragged her into a bathroom and raped her anally, vaginally and orally for 30 minutes, according to the order.

The Durham district attorney's reaction, he later told lawyer Jim Cooney: "Holy crap, what is going on?"…

One is that before Nifong's alleged copier “discovey,” Neff’s own N&O published two stories on the alleged rapes, the Durham Herald Sun published one story and Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published two.

I’ve included here some text sceptical snipped. I've also included here the full text of a Mar. 18 Durham Herald Sun story not included in sceptical’s comment.

But what follows is otherwise the result of sceptical’s care and effort for which we can all say, "Thanks."

SATURDAY MARCH 18: N&O and H-S publish first articles about the case:

The N&O's story ran with - - -

Woman reports sexual assault

Police were investigating a report of a rape on Buchanan Boulevard near the Duke University campus Friday. .. A young woman told police she visited 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. Monday and was assaulted by three men, according to police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb... Anyone with information is asked to call Investigator B.W. Himan at 560-4582, ext. 229

The Herald Sun's story ran with - - -

Woman says 3 men raped her

Police are investigating the rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan St. on Tuesday.

The woman told police that she arrived at the house for a party on Monday night and did not leave the house until after midnight Tuesday.

Police are asking any potential witnesses to call Investigator Himan at 560-4582 or CrimeStoppers at 683-1200.

CrimeStoppers pays cash rewards for tips leading to an arrest and callers do not have to identify themselves.

SUNDAY MARCH 19: Second N&0 article on the case:Alleged rape was at party, police said

Police offered more details Saturday in the investigation of a young woman's report she was raped by three men at a party Monday near the Duke University campus. The woman told police early Tuesday morning that she had gone to a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. the night before for a party, said Sgt. Mark Gottlieb. While at the party, she was raped by three men, she reported to police.

Gottlieb described the party as a mix of college students and non-students. In total, there were about 30 people there at the time, he said. "It was an act where alcohol was involved," Gottlieb said. (snip)

MONDAY MARCH 20: The Duke Chronicle publishes its first article on the case:

Durham Police Department is investigating an alleged rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. over Spring Break.

Duke recently purchased the rented residence from a local landlord.

The alleged assault was reported early in the morning of Tuesday, March 14.

The young woman arrived at the house for a party at around 11:30 p.m. Monday, March 13 and reportedly left after midnight, Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb of Durham Police District 2 Investigations wrote in an e-mail to a community listserv.

He encouraged individuals in the area at the time to report to DPD if they "saw or heard anything unusual."

Gottlieb could not be reached for comment.

The house at 610 N. Buchanan is one of 12 in the Trinity Park neighborhood that Duke purchased from Trinity Properties, a local real estate firm, in early March.

The University bought, in total, 15 properties near East Campus for approximately $3.7 million.

The purchased homes are mostly student-occupied, and many are the frequent subjects of noise, trash and partying complaints filed by Trinity Park residents.

Duke plans to turn the houses into single-occupancy residences.

TUESDAY,= MARCH 21: The Duke Chronicle publishes its second article on the case:Suspects in alleged rape unidentified

One week after a young woman was allegedly raped at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., the Durham Police Department is still investigating the situation, saying "the suspects have not been clearly identified."

The house, which was recently purchased by University subsidiary Durham Realty, was the site of a party that involved both Duke students and non-students, said Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb of Durham Police District 2 Investigations.

Sue Wasiolek, assistant vice president for student affairs and dean of students, said the University will not take action until the police department's investigation is finished.

"From what I understand, the situation is under investigation by the Durham Police Department, and we will await that investigation," she said.

Larry Moneta, vice president for student affairs, added that the University would take appropriate measures, pending the police investigation.

Gottlieb said any man that attended the party March 13 would be a viable suspect but refused to go into further detail.

The residents of the house have been cooperative with DPD in locating any suspects, he added.

The residence was one of 15 properties-three lots and 12 houses-Duke bought from Trinity Properties, a local real estate firm, earlier this month. The University paid approximately $3.7 million in the deal.

The houses, located in the Trinity Park neighborhood near East Campus, have mostly been rented by students in the past, but Duke hopes to turn them into single-occupancy residences in the future.

Many local residents in the Trinity Park area have long complained about noise and litter associated with parties at several of the houses.

*** END OF SECOND CHRONICLE STORY *******

Sceptical ended the comment with - - -

It should be noted that none of the early newspaper reports stated that the 610 N. Buchanan tenants were lacrosse team members or that the accuser was black.

However, John is correct in inferring that Nifong, who regularly read the newspapers, is likely to have seen one of these articles between March 18 and 21.

This argument is in addition to the one that I have made that Nifong was likley involved in the March 22 deal between Kim (Roberts) Pittman and Durham PD officers Gottlieb and Himan for changes in her statement in exchange for staying out of jail for parole violations.

I encourage you to read those posts before reading the one which follows below the star line because that post presumes you’re very familiar with the contents of the four posts I’ve just cited and linked to.

In the coming days I’ll respond to part or all of each of the 15 comments presently there.

I’ll begin here with an interlinear response to part of one of sceptical’s thread comments.

Sceptical’s in italics; I’m in plain.

Sceptical said in part - - -

… I do not think to start with that there was an overall conspiracy (that happened later).

I agree although I think we should allow that one or more officials who were on the case very early (Mar. 14, 15 & 16) already had, at least in his/her or their minds, the idea/wish to “get something on these guys no matter.”

That said, in those first days it was right for officials to respond to Mangum’s charges with a full, fair investigation.

There’s no doubt that by Mar. 23 when Nifong’s chief ADA David Saacks agreed to “walk” the “mammothly unconstitutional” NTO “through the court” conspirators were already involved in a frame-up attempt.

But there's a great deal we don't know about the actions between Mar. 14 and 23 of power figures connected to the DL frame.

We'll have a much better understanding of how and why the frame was attempted when we know, for example, what DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge and some of the other key figures did between Mar. 14 and 23 as well as what they did after that timeframe.

I believe there was a convergence of interests, the combination of which was quite unlucky for the team.

You’re right about that.

1) A mentally-ill prostitute who did not want to be incarcerated, for whom a rape claim was the way out;

And whom, as she rested all snug in her bed,Saw visions of $ $ $ $ dance in her head.

2) A Duke-hating cop who wanted revenge for being transferred;

Gottlieb’s a very complex guy whose role in the frame attempt and the ongoing cover-up has been largely misconstrued because of all the “Duke-hating cop” talk.

It’s a given Gottlieb’s a “Dukie hater;”

and he certainly had a central and odious role in the frame-up attempt;

and there’s no doubt he produced bogus “notes” to support both the frame-up attempt and the ongoing cover-up;

but with all of that,

if we want to understand how the frame developed we must acknowledge the truth of what a very wise person told me as the frame-up began to unravel:

“Gottlieb wouldn’t have been in there for a heartbeat unless the top commend wanted him there; the city, too.”

Gottlieb no doubt had his own internal motives for much of what he did.

But during Mar. 2006 Gottlieb wasn't some kind of off-the-range freelancer; he was the dutiful agent of DPD's top command.

5) A politically desperate prosecutor who needed a big case to ensure his salary and pension;It’s not important to the injustices of the case; or to the struggle to discover as much of the truth as we can; or to hold to some account those responsible for the wrongs; or to acknowledge those who in tough circumstances did right;

but just for the record I’d like to say:

I’ve never bought in to the “ensure his salary and pension” explanation.

and

6) News media looking for a hot story with "Sex, lies and Duke."

That’s true as regards much of media that came on “the story” after Mar. 25, 2006 when the Raleigh N&O sent across the nation and the world a story its headlines told readers without any qualification suggesting doubt was about “a night” which ended in “sexual violence.”

You take away any of these 6 factors and there might not have been a "Duke Lacrosse Scandal."

Later on, there was a more organized conspiracy between Duke, the Durham police, and the Durham administration. See Ekstrand's civil suit.

But at the beginning it appears there was an unfortunate combination of circumstances leading to a disaster.

Sceptical, you’re doing here what few people following the DL case do: you’re looking forward from “the beginning” (Mar 13/14) and asking questions.

Let’s imagine we’re in Durham early on the morning of Mar.14, 2006. We’ve just heard about Mangum’s false charges made at Duke’s ER.

At that moment we know nothing else about what would become the DL case.

But we are safe in assuming that however flimsy the woman's charges, they’ll be some kind of police investigation which, when any rape charges are made, is the proper police response.

Given the explosive nature of the most serious crimes alleged - - a black woman accusing white Duke students of gang-raping and beating her - - we would reasonably think that police command will make sure the investigation is headed by a top investigator known for empathy, investigative skill and fairness.

But on Mar. 16 we learn Gottlieb’s been put in charge of the investigation.

Gotttlieb’s record suggested he wasn’t likely to lead a fair investigation; yet he was put in charge of it.

Looking forward from Mar. 14 we can say with certainty the decision to put Gottlieb in charge, made in the first days of the case, was made with knowing disregard of the need for an empathic, skilled and fair investigator leading such a sensitive and potentially explosive investigation.

What we knew by Mar. 16 gave us strong reason to doubt DPD top command wanted a fair and full investigation of Mangum's charges

Who put Gottlieb in charge of the investigation? And why?

I'd like to ask DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge those questions.

Recall that Hodge was in day-to-day charge of the department during most of the “investigation” while the since retired Chief, Steve Chalmers, was, we were told, taking care of his mother who was ill and residing in Durham.

"I don't think we would be here if it wasn't (a strong case)," Maj. Ron Hodge, the assistant (sic) chief of the Durham Police Department, said after the forum. (Hodge is deputy chief. The parenthetical "a strong case" is in the MSNBC story. – JinC )(bold added).

Nine months later in January 2007 when Nifong stepped aside and turned the case over to the NC Attorney General’s office, Hodge assured the Raleigh News & Observer DPD had collected evidence and that the case would go forward. I posted on the story here. The post contains a link to the N&O story which included:

Hodge said he thinks that the case will still go forward and that the remaining charges will be prosecuted.

"I don't think it changes anything that we've done," Hodge said. "It just means that we'll have to deal with a different attorney."

Why did Hodge say in April, 2006 DPD had a strong case when, as we now know, it never had any credible evidence?

Hodge must have known that then.

Why did Hodge claim in January, 2007 that DPD had collected evidence which would enable a prosecutor to go forward with the case when, as the Attorney General said just three months later, there was no credible evidence any crime had been committed?

What was Hodge doing?

What has Hodge done in connection with the DL case starting on Mar. 14, 2006 and going forward from there?

The Duke lacrosse victims and their families deserve to know. So does the public.